Probably broader jurisdiction. Precinct calls city. Town calls county. If situation requires armored vehicles, call state police, etc. it seems like every jurisdiction has very high levels of capabilities.

This is the way we currently do it (here); once we get to a level that exceeds our training / equipment, we call out our regional SWAT team (funded by Homeland Security). The state police here has a SWAT team as well, but we are less likely to use that asset, due to gross inefficiency of this Dog-and-Pony Show.

The officers that make up both of these teams are dedicated, hard-working cops BUT they are managed by different types of people. The ISP SWAT commanders generally set up their mobile-command in a secure area, well outside the perimeter. Their next priority is to have the coffee maker up and running before anything else happens.

The regional SWAT commanders brief while en route and hit the ground running. As they are federally funded (DHS), there is a lot of oversight. The Fed equips and trains them, but they are paid by their home-agency.

If I had a high-risk search warrant (a very small percentage of the whole), I would call these guys out. Their only function in this process is to make entry and secure the building. As soon as this happens, they get into their armored vehicle, de-brief and go home. That leaves the agency who had the warrant to conduct the search, collect the evidence and investigate.

Originally Posted by Cake of Doom

I would also add to that, that deploying troops in the home nation for law enforcement issues (other than risk of invasion, supporting law enforcement in riot situations), is a very sketchy political mine field. Should an extreme situation where that level of force is necessary occur, civilian LEO's with greater tactical assets would be a better option.

Absolutely. The governor could (upon request from local governments) call out the Illinois National Guard. I would be totally opposed to this type of military action as well, but I have never seen this happen.

So is the militarization of police something that we as citizens should don our tinfoil hats and be concerned with? My answer to that question is both yes and no.

Where I Draw the Line

The area where I draw the line on what should be an acceptable level of militarization within our police departments is when we start obtaining equipment that is exclusive to the military and not available to the general public.

Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
–George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

There is multiple definitions of the word. For instance the word can be used to distinguish police from non-police. Another definition is "Not in the military". Police are subject to the same legal system as us. The authority to carry out the duties of their jobs comes from the same legal system we follow. Police can carry weapons banned for military use and can conduct undercover investigations or just be plain clothed. Military must wear uniforms. Military is subject to a separate system of laws. Police do not. In the US a special law prevents military from law enforcement. Finally, police can not conduct war. So in a thread about militarization of police I think using civilians in the context of military vs non-military is the correct usage and most applicable for discussing points.

On the getting twisted over the "civilian thing"..I posted this earlier here...

Originally Posted by tgace

Eh..the whole LEO/Civilian discussion.

I think there's a difference between using the terms to describe/discuss the fact that police:

1. Are sworn members of a government quasi-military organization.

2. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

3. They are given legal authority by their agency and state or federal law which exceeds any legal authority possessed by other citizens.

and using the term as a class differentiation.

Webster even defines Civilian as:

Definition of CIVILIAN
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

...I agree with the sentiment and the idea that officers should think of themselves as members of their community, we are all subject to the same laws. But I wouldn't get too twisted with the words when used in general discussion.

In my PD we have non-sworn persons who work there..they are termed "civilian employees" but could also be termed "non-sworn". LE/Civilian is generally better understood in discussion than Sworn/Non-Sworn is (except perhaps by other Cops).

I think that in colloquial use it's not a big deal to refer to police as non-civilians casually, but in a formal or official context it would not be appropriate.

There is multiple definitions of the word. For instance the word can be used to distinguish police from non-police. Another definition is "Not in the military". Police are subject to the same legal system as us. The authority to carry out the duties of their jobs comes from the same legal system we follow. Police can carry weapons banned for military use and can conduct undercover investigations or just be plain clothed. Military must wear uniforms. Military is subject to a separate system of laws. Police do not. In the US a special law prevents military from law enforcement. Finally, police can not conduct war. So in a thread about militarization of police I think using civilians in the context of military vs non-military is the correct usage and most applicable for discussing points.

Just spit balling here.
I wonder if police should stop using the word internally to distinguish police from non-police. As one of the synonyms of the word is noncombatant(I know there are more).
Overall I would say if police are thinking in terms of who is and is not a combatant we do have a militarization problem.
Of course I don't think every police offer is using this term in such a manner most are using it as an easy term to distinguish between LEOs and nonLeos.
But words do have power.

Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
–George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

Just spit balling here.
I wonder if police should stop using the word internally to distinguish police from non-police. As one of the synonyms of the word is noncombatant(I know there are more).
Overall I would say if police are thinking in terms of who is and is not a combatant we do have a militarization problem.
Of course I don't think every police offer is using this term in such a manner most are using it as an easy term to distinguish between LEOs and nonLeos.
But words do have power.

You are right it is a very big stretch. I doubt it that it is all that valid.
I am sure its unrelated it does appear to me when I do deal with the police as time goes on I do feel more of an us vs them mentality and it would be nice to have something easy to blame it on instead complex social issues.

Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
–George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

Here's a general thought. Is this whole discussion a "drug war" discussion? If someone is on the rampage, I don't hear many people complain about police tactics an hardware.

I don't think the militarization of police is solely the purview of the drug war. The at home war on terror has certainly played a role in it. Look at NYC anti-terror units.

Well I have heard an expression that is fairly apt
"Nobody like Cops and Lawyers till they need them"

Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
–George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

I think that people are misusing the term (militarization). Gear is not the issue, actions are. I could just as easily trample your rights wearing jeans, a t shirt and a six shooter.

If I boot in your door with a squad of patrol cops in blue (derived from military uniforms if the past BTW) is that somehow "better" than if they were wearing ACU's? People are letting the toys obscure the facts on this issue.